Motivations and incentives for pro-environmental behaviour: the case of silvopasture adoption in the tropical forest frontier

On the frontier of biodiversity-rich tropical forests, how land is used has an important role in buffering the primary ecosystem. Unsustainable small-scale cattle farming endangers soil quality and degrades the landscape. Silvopasture is a type of agroforestry that provides both ecological and livelihood benefits. A number of projects have been implemented across the tropics to encourage silvopasture adoption, with varying success. This dissertation questions the reasons for variable outcomes among participants within these projects: what motivates smallholders to adopt innovative land-use practices, and what form of incentives may help to overcome obstacles and catalyse adoption. This dissertation contributes to the ongoing debate on payments for ecosystem services, specifically about their suitability and effectiveness. To understand what influences decisions to adopt sustainable land-use practices, I review systematically and quantitatively the literature on adoption predictors, and I empirically analyse participation and short-term adoption in a pilot project for planting fodder trees in the border of a protected forest in Chiapas, Mexico, using primary and secondary data. I focus on subjective perspectives and livelihood strategies of actual and potential participants as explanatory variables, which have received unduly scarce attention in past studies. This lack of attention is partially caused by the difficulties of operationalising internal variables. I address this challenge by developing an analytical approach that increases the precision of the resulting perspectives in Q methodology. I cluster livelihood strategies and model adoption. This in-depth case-study suggests the type of incentives that are adequate to encourage adoption of sustainable land-use practices. Results indicate that payments may not be the best incentive for pioneer adopters, and that the adoption process is composed of separate individual steps, which are influenced distinctly by identifiable predictors, such as livelihood diversity. Uncovering this heterogeneity of motivations towards adoption provides useful knowledge for designing more effective external policy interventions.This work was supported by the Department of Research of the Basque Government (Full PhD scholarship, AK-2009), and by fieldwork grants from the Mexican Government, via El Colegio de la Frontera Sur

When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research.

Understanding human perspectives is critical in a range of conservation contexts, for example, in overcoming conflicts or developing projects that are acceptable to relevant stakeholders. The Q methodology is a unique semiquantitative technique used to explore human perspectives. It has been applied for decades in other disciplines and recently gained traction in conservation. This paper helps researchers assess when Q is useful for a given conservation question and what its use involves. To do so, we explained the steps necessary to conduct a Q study, from the research design to the interpretation of results. We provided recommendations to minimize biases in conducting a Q study, which can affect mostly when designing the study and collecting the data. We conducted a structured literature review of 52 studies to examine in what empirical conservation contexts Q has been used. Most studies were subnational or national cases, but some also address multinational or global questions. We found that Q has been applied to 4 broad types of conservation goals: addressing conflict, devising management alternatives, understanding policy acceptability, and critically reflecting on the values that implicitly influence research and practice. Through these applications, researchers found hidden views, understood opinions in depth and discovered points of consensus that facilitated unlocking difficult disagreements. The Q methodology has a clear procedure but is also flexible, allowing researchers explore long-term views, or views about items other than statements, such as landscape images. We also found some inconsistencies in applying and, mainly, in reporting Q studies, whereby it was not possible to fully understand how the research was conducted or why some atypical research decisions had been taken in some studies. Accordingly, we suggest a reporting checklist.NM was funded by NERC grant (NE/R006946/1), Fondation Wiener Anspach and Scriven post-doctoral fellowship

Net zero by choice? Oil and gas industry motivations for the energy transition and public policy in Scotland

Many oil and gas (O&G) companies began, in recent years, to increase their renewable and low-carbon energy (R&LCE) operations – crucial for climate mitigation. In Scotland, renewable electricity generation has tripled since 2009. However, this progress remains insufficient to meet carbon reduction targets. More effective public policies are needed to accelerate this trend while meeting energy needs and retaining energy industry employment, which is essential for a just transition. This study analyzes drivers of O&G industry investment into R&LCE to understand how government intervention can steer corporate decision-making. We develop and apply a conceptual framework of drivers of decisions for such investments. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 individuals in strategic positions working in O&G companies in Scotland, which are exemplary of similar O&G-intensive regions in the global North. We find that the energy transition narrative within the industry mostly supports developing R&LCE projects that build on existing O&G assets and expertise, such as blue hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. Industry-wide narratives encourage investment in R&LCE across the sector, not only in companies facing the most scrutiny. The findings suggest the need to tailor public policy to increase the pressure of drivers of change, including increasing restrictions on access to financial capital for O&G, emphasizing narratives that promote R&LCE, and working to lower the costs of accessing expertise and retraining employees in R&LCE technology. Transitioning employment without job loss through retraining workers synergizes private and social interests, so an emphasis on (re)training and education for capacity building can be an immediate successful policy approach for a just transition

Social equity and pluralism in Nature-based Solutions: Practitioners' perspectives on implementation

The need to include pluralistic values of nature in conservation projects, including Nature-based Solutions (NbS), has become evident, and calls for value pluralism have gained traction. However, it is unclear how this can be implemented in practice. We explore how pluralism and related social equity are incorporated by practitioners involved in the governance of NbS, analysing five cases identified as exemplary by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. We develop a conceptual framework of social equity founded on five components: recognition, participation, distribution, rights, and accountability. This framework guides our analysis of primary data from in-depth interviews and secondary data from project reports. We discuss how practitioners assimilate these components in their practices and in the design of governance processes. The results indicate a strong commitment to participation and local communities’ involvement, evidenced by specific practices across the projects, although at times driven by individuals rather than institutionally. Processes were conceived to foster actor participation, including those in vulnerable positions; build local capacity and strengthen ownership. Approaches to local communities’ involvement typically begin by eliciting their views and values to design projects with ecological and social benefits. We discuss good practices, like extensive stakeholder mapping, citizen committees to represent local views, and multi-stakeholder platforms to articulate and communicate people’s views and values. The findings underscore the need for a more comprehensive governance approach following an enhanced concept of pluralism that, beside considering plural values of nature and beyond social equity, includes diverse voices, perspectives and forms of knowledge in conservation governance

Challenges beyond reaching a 30% of area protection

The Conference of the Parties of the signatories of the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed in 2022 to protect 30% of terrestrial and marine areas by 2030 (the “30 × 30” target). What challenges emerge or intensify once (if) this 30 × 30 goal is achieved globally? To help practitioners and researchers pre-empt and plan along the path towards 30% protected area (PA) coverage, we draw lessons from a sizable and biodiversity-rich region that has already hit the target on land. Based on experiences and research about PAs in Spain (36% of land and 12% of marine area protected), we identify, illustrate and discuss the socioeconomic and management challenges that emerge with a high proportion of a country’s area protected, as well as possible strategies to address them. We structure these challenges in three levels: PA governance and management, PA integrity, and the landscape matrix outside PA boundaries. Important strategies to address these challenges include enhancing engagement, participation and stewardship; increasing institutional resilience and a cross-sectoral approach for socio-environmental goals. Achieving quantitative targets of protection will not be sufficient to conserve the world’s biodiversity and, in a leap forward, we envision the governance areas that need the most attention as countries reach (or get close to) sizeable proportions of protection

Comparison of techniques for eliciting views and judgements in decision-making

1. Decision‐making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining information and values. The current status quo relies heavily on the informational aspect of decision‐making with little or no emphasis on the value positions that affect decisions. 2. There is increasing realization of the importance of adopting rigorous methods for each stage such that the information, views and judgements of stakeholders and experts are used in a systematic and repeatable manner. Though there are several methodological textbooks which discuss a plethora of social science techniques, it is hard to judge the suitability of any given technique for a given decision problem. 3. In decision‐making, the three critical aspects are “what” decision is to be made, “who” makes the decisions and “how” the decisions are made. The methods covered in this paper focus on “how” decisions can be made. We compare six techniques: Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Interviews, Q methodology, Multi‐criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi technique specifically in the context of biodiversity conservation. All of these techniques (with the exception of MCDA) help in understanding human values and the underlying perspectives which shape decisions. 4. Based on structured reviews of 423 papers covering all six methods, we compare the conceptual and logistical characteristics of the methods, and map their suitability for the different stages of the decision‐making process. While interviews and FGD are well‐known, techniques such the Nominal Group technique and Q methodology are relatively under‐used. In situations where conflict is high, we recommend using the Q methodology and Delphi technique to elicit judgements. Where conflict is low, and a consensus is needed urgently, the Nominal Group technique may be more suitable. 5. We present a nuanced synthesis of methods aimed at users. The comparison of the different techniques might be useful for project managers, academics or practitioners in the planning phases of their projects and help in making better informed methodological choices.N.M. was funded by the Fondation Wiener Anspach and the Scriven post doctoral fellowship. J.H. is funded by the Belgian National Fund for Research (FRS‐FNRS) and the KLIMOS‐ACROPOLIS project. N.T.O. was funded by Cambridge Overseas Trusts, The Wildlife Conservation Society, Wildlife Conservation Network and WildiZe Foundation. B.A.E. is funded by EU Horizon 2020 ESMERALDA Project, grant agreement no. 642007. W.J.S. is funded by Arcadia

Waste-to-energy risk perception typology: health, politics and environmental impacts

Where strategies to reduce and recycle urban solid waste are insufficient, waste incineration is proposed as second-best management. Waste-to-energy facilities often raise remarkable public controversy, which the Not-In-My-Backyard effect does not explain sufficiently. Heterogeneous concerns lead to diverse risk perception profiles that standard psychometric scales cannot uncover. We explore this diversity of profiles by analyzing risk perceptions about a recently built waste-to-energy facility in Gipuzkoa (Spain), a case underlined by a decades-long public debate about waste management alternatives. Using Q, a semi-qualitative method, we identify risk perceptions within a diverse sample of fifty participants, including residents at different distances to the facility. We identify three main types of risk perception based on the relative importance respondents gave to 26 possible perceived risks of the facility. We define risk perception types according to the concerns that respondents with similar views emphasized most: human health, politics and institutions, and local social-ecological impacts. Whereas human-health and social-ecological concerns could be partially addressed with information—including timely and accessible reporting of effluent monitoring—and improved safety, building institutional trust to mitigate the concerns in the second risk perception type requires longer-term dynamics. Understanding heterogeneous risk profiles as done in this study can support adequate communication strategies and help policymakers prioritize governance areas to improve. Our results contribute to understanding social-environmental risk perceptions associated with controversial facilities. Using an approach that is new in this domain, these results add nuanced understanding that complements the quantitative profiling prevalent in the literature on risk perceptions and about waste-to-energy plants

Understanding non-participation in local governance institutions in Indonesia

Community-centered approaches are crucial and impactful strategies for the global climate and biodiversity crisis. However, these approaches hinge upon participation for both pragmatic and ethical reasons. While there is a growing body of research in this field, most studies focus on those who opt in to these community-based approaches. Research focuses on how interventions do or do not achieve the intended cross-sectoral outcomes that are flagship among these strategies. Few studies seek to understand the objective and subjective constraints of non-participants. We investigated why community members chose not to participate in a community-centered conservation approach in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. We used snowball saturation sampling and semi-structured interviews across nine villages, surveying both non-participants and key informants. Our results show that non-material factors such as time, lack of understanding, and feeling uninvited drove non-participation. Non-participants did not identify a lack of interest in program activities or services as a primary reason for opting out. Key informants suggested that participation could be improved with better outreach around objectives, potential benefits, and data feedback loops that quickly communicated results to community members. These results have implications for conservation strategies around the globe as findings suggest investing in non-material factors (e.g., improved messaging and considerations of time burdens) are significant constraints to participation. Payment for ecosystem services and carbon finance schemes often invest considerable time and money in incentivizing participation with material benefits, and our results suggest a more significant consideration should be placed on time requirements, messaging/outreach, adaptive feedback loops, and democratizing data ownership

Bootstrapping Q Methodology to Improve the Understanding of Human Perspectives.

Q is a semi-qualitative methodology to identify typologies of perspectives. It is appropriate to address questions concerning diverse viewpoints, plurality of discourses, or participation processes across disciplines. Perspectives are interpreted based on rankings of a set of statements. These rankings are analysed using multivariate data reduction techniques in order to find similarities between respondents. Discussing the analytical process and looking for progress in Q methodology is becoming increasingly relevant. While its use is growing in social, health and environmental studies, the analytical process has received little attention in the last decades and it has not benefited from recent statistical and computational advances. Specifically, the standard procedure provides overall and arguably simplistic variability measures for perspectives and none of these measures are associated to individual statements, on which the interpretation is based. This paper presents an innovative approach of bootstrapping Q to obtain additional and more detailed measures of variability, which helps researchers understand better their data and the perspectives therein. This approach provides measures of variability that are specific to each statement and perspective, and additional measures that indicate the degree of certainty with which each respondent relates to each perspective. This supplementary information may add or subtract strength to particular arguments used to describe the perspectives. We illustrate and show the usefulness of this approach with an empirical example. The paper provides full details for other researchers to implement the bootstrap in Q studies with any data collection design

Ten-year assessment of the 100 priority questions for global biodiversity conservation

In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity ?Sutherland et al. (2009) Conservation Biology, 23, 557?567?. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high?priority questions in the peer?reviewed literature. Here we take a first step toward re?examining the 100 questions and identify key knowledge gaps that still remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each of the 100 questions on the basis of two criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly?relevant questions as those which ? if answered ? would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation, while effort was quantified based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past ten years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled three major themes: the conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, the role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and the impacts of conservation interventions. We see these questions as important knowledge gaps that have so far received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritised in future research